CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[danielpalos]

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

 

[danielpalos]

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

The exact same wording is used in the 4th amendment. By your logic, there is no such thing as illegal search & seizure as long as it is only against an individual and not a group. I guess cops can stop reading people their rights under Miranda, as long as it is individuals, right?

You got nothing, any dictionary cannot easily gainsay.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The entire reason for the writing of the first 10 amendments was to preserve the rights of the individual, not the collective.

The fact that the word "people" was used merely signifies that it covers all individuals.

you have to read each amendment. the purpose and legislative intent cannot be ignored.

you keep doing it, tho

Why?

prove it, don't just make it up.

the purpose and legislative Intent, is in the first clause; the second clause Must follow the first clause.

 

[danielpalos]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

 

[danielpalos]

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

No it does not. It requires that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, so that if the militia is needed it can be organized quickly.

In other words, the State can simply employ, rule of State law for any Persons that may be required for the security of a free State or the Union.

 

[Auld Phart]

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

what part of 'Only males between the ages of 16-45 may belong to a Militia', do you not understand?

Making your claim "the People are the Militia" erroneous.

men between the ages of 16-45 are NOT all of the people.

 

[Auld Phart]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

 

[danielpalos]

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Absolute nonsense.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances a collective right?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures a collective right?



The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

You have to read the text of each article of amendment. Both People and Militia are plural and collective. Look it up in any dictionary, just like socialism.

I posted the text of each amendment. Why is the use of "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment a collective right, and the use of "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment an individual right? The exact same phrase.

Also, as I said, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right. Unless they change that ruling in another case, your arguments are moot.

means nothing. simply judicial activism. all i need is a dictionary.

Not at all. And besides, who would be the better constitutional scholar? You or a SCOTUS justice?

And the use of the plural simply signifies that all persons are included.

like i said; i am not the one appealing to ignorance of the actual meaning of words.

look it up in any dictionary.


just like, socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

the people is plural and collective, not singular and individual. why should I believe your allegation over the actual words in our supreme law of the land.

The exact same wording is used in the 4th amendment. By your logic, there is no such thing as illegal search & seizure as long as it is only against an individual and not a group. I guess cops can stop reading people their rights under Miranda, as long as it is individuals, right?

You got nothing, any dictionary cannot easily gainsay.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The entire reason for the writing of the first 10 amendments was to preserve the rights of the individual, not the collective.

The fact that the word "people" was used merely signifies that it covers all individuals.

you have to read each amendment. the purpose and legislative intent cannot be ignored.

Well isn't that handy? So you claim "the right of the people" is absolute proof the 2nd amendment is a collective right, but the same phrase in the 1st and 4th amendments means an individual right. And you know this because of the purpose and legislative intent. But if you read the papers of the men who WROTE the 2nd amendment, it shows you to be absolutely wrong.

dude; express powers means no assumptions if the legislative intent is clear.

 

[danielpalos]

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Absolute nonsense.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances a collective right?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures a collective right?



The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

You have to read the text of each article of amendment. Both People and Militia are plural and collective. Look it up in any dictionary, just like socialism.

I posted the text of each amendment. Why is the use of "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment a collective right, and the use of "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment an individual right? The exact same phrase.

Also, as I said, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right. Unless they change that ruling in another case, your arguments are moot.

means nothing. simply judicial activism. all i need is a dictionary.

Apparently, you need more than dictionary, grammar basics perhaps. Or simple courtesy to discussing the OP, instead of blabbering about subject you know very little about.

The 2nd Amendment is part of Bill of Rights. Every time Founders used the phrase “right of the people,” they unambiguously referred to individual rights and limiting government powers to prevent these rights being eliminated.

Now back to the subject. And subject is NOT do people have right to keep and bear arms, but question for our leftist friends - what they would do without 2nd Amendment if their worse nightmare called Trump, became tyrannical?

nothing but fallacy?

Where is Your dictionary definition proving any of the terms involved are anything other than plural and collective.

 

[danielpalos]

We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.

In this thought experiment you first say people have the constitutional right to be able to arm themselves against the standing army, and then acknowledge that because of the strength of that army the best citizens can hope for is significant damage. It seems you contradict your own position here. I think you realize that the citizenry arming themselves with heavy weapons is probably a bad idea so you are hedging. But hedging puts a lie to your argument that the second amendment is necessary as protection against tyranny.

Meanwhile South Vietnam proves a small poorly armed force can tie up hundreds of thousands of troops, Afghanistan shows that a small poorly armed force can force a nation State that is a super power to retreat.

Lousy management?

 

[danielpalos]

the people is collective and plural. Not Individual. There are no individual rights in the usage of the term People in our Second Amendment. It is a fallacy of composition, to believe there are any individual rights in our Second Article of Amendment.

Absolute nonsense.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Is the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the gov't for a redress of grievances a collective right?

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches & seizures a collective right?



The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right.

You have to read the text of each article of amendment. Both People and Militia are plural and collective. Look it up in any dictionary, just like socialism.

I posted the text of each amendment. Why is the use of "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment a collective right, and the use of "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment an individual right? The exact same phrase.

Also, as I said, the US Supreme Court has ruled it an individual right. Unless they change that ruling in another case, your arguments are moot.

means nothing. simply judicial activism. all i need is a dictionary.

Apparently, you need more than dictionary, grammar basics perhaps. Or simple courtesy to discussing the OP, instead of blabbering about subject you know very little about.

The 2nd Amendment is part of Bill of Rights. Every time Founders used the phrase “right of the people,” they unambiguously referred to individual rights and limiting government powers to prevent these rights being eliminated.

Now back to the subject. And subject is NOT do people have right to keep and bear arms, but question for our leftist friends - what they would do without 2nd Amendment if their worse nightmare called Trump, became tyrannical?

who's fault is it, gun lovers can't convince their own local representatives, they can be responsible with their Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

what part of 'Only males between the ages of 16-45 may belong to a Militia', do you not understand?

Making your claim "the People are the Militia" erroneous.

men between the ages of 16-45 are NOT all of the people.

that is the statutory militia; the people are the militia under the common law for the common defense, since the ratification of our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[Auld Phart]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

 

[danielpalos]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

 

[Auld Phart]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

 

[Auld Phart]

NOT what the 2nd says, is it?

Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.

what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

i am on the left.

Obviously.

and you are making up facts to make your point.

The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

I'd like to see a nonpartisan link on that

Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.

AS do the People, according to the 2nd.

You should read the entire thing one of these days.

No, they don't. That is a simple fallacy. Natural rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the whole and entire concept of natural rights.

your opinion.

I gave you a site earlier countering your that, with quotes from future Presidents, Statesmen, etc.

you seem to b e having a lot of trouble with the phrase "the right of the People".

Even back then, it meant ALL the people.

Women, males under the age of 16, over the age of 45, and the infirm were included.

 

[PredFan]

Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.

Period.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.

And you get shot down every time.

 

[WinterBorn]

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

Remember when you said we have to look at the con

Militia = able bodied men between the ages of 16-45


the People = everyone

Currently, men, women, in all fifty states are allowed to keep and bear arms.

What part of that do you not understand?

Well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; unlike the unorganized militia which is specifically not well regulated and subject to the traditional police power of a State.

now you're changing the Amendment to what you want it to say?

you lose.

Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.

you should reread it...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

The People are the Militia, in that context.

text and the legislative intent?

The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.

Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.